Complaint filed on: 14.11.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 29.12.2016

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.2529/2013

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Smt. A.Maria Selvi

w/o G.George

Aged about 64 years

Residing at No.222,

4^th ‘A’ Main, 2^nd ‘B’ Cross, PMBR Layout, Banaswadi

Bengaluru-560033

By Adv. Sri.Shankar S Bhat  

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. M/s. Andhra Bank Ltd.

Executive Director

Head office at

Dr.Pattabhi  Bhavan,

5-9, 11, Saifabad

Hyderabad

Andrapradesh-500004

2. Assistant General Manager and Authorized Officer Andhra Bank, Cook Town Branch, D.Costa Layout,

Bengaluru-560005

By Adv. Sri. T.P.Muthanna

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party bank/Andhra bank for not furnishing the demanded documents of its auctioned site and hence has claimed Rs.80,000/- towards their negligence with compensation amount of Rs.1 lakh.

          2. The site no.148 (50’ X 30’), Byappanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North was auctioned by the Opposite party/Andhra bank on 15.12.2012 and later issue of the sale certificate dated 04.02.2013. The said auctioned site was purchased by the Complainant who is a retired school teacher. The said site was auctioned in connection with the loan transactions of Niranjankumar S with Opposite party bank.

          3. The case of the Complainant in brief is that after obtaining the sale certificated, she wrote letter dated 04.09.2013 to the Bank, for the purpose of registration, seeking khata certificate, tax paid receipts, DTD copy, form no.9 & 11/no.1 & 12. Due to pervious statement of the Opposite party No.2 on non-furnishing of the said documents, the registration of sale certificate was kept pending by Sub-registrar. The bank went on dodging the same. She was forced to pay Rs.80,000/- towards late fee charged by the Sub-registrar and then also the sale certificate was not cleared. The said act of the Opposite party/bank becomes its negligent act and wrong act which become deficiency of service. Legal notice dated 03.10.2013 and reminder legal notice dated 26.10.2013 were served on both the Opposite parties but she did not receive reply. Hence this complaint is filed.

          4. The Opposite parties/Andhra Bank, head office and Cooke town branch, Bengaluru filed the joint version denying the allegations made against them. They admitted the auction held in favour of the Complainant about the site no.148 under SARFAESI Act. They contend that the Complainant who became the highest bidder for Rs.16 lakhs was issued with the sale certificate and vacant possession of the sale property with all original title deeds lodged by the Niranjankumar S to them to her full satisfaction as recorded in the sale certificate. The sale in the public auction was exempted from registration. It was for the purchaser to opt and get the registration of the same and accordingly she opted and paid late fee of Rs.80,000/- and later approached the Opposite party No.2 and got the request letter dated 15.07.2013 to the Sub-registrar wherein the exemption  of banks personal appearance u/s 88(1) of Registration Act was informed. Later she wrote another letter dated 02.09.2013 and the available copies/documents were once again handed over to her. The form no.9 & 11/no.1 & 12 and the khata certificate were not lodged by Niranjankumar S and it was intimated to her. Surprisingly they received letter dated 03.10.2013 which was also replied suitably on 05.10.2013. There is no cause of action against them. She has already taken delivery of the property and the records with full satisfaction. The Complainant herself becomes responsible for the delay in presenting the sale certificate for which they have no role whatsoever in the matter. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          5. The Complainant filed affidavit evidence of herself and her husband. She has relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A13 documents. Assistant General Manager of Opposite party bank filed the affidavit evidence and he has relied on Ex-B1 to Ex-B6 documents. Written arguments were filed by both the sides. Arguments were heard.

6. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service against the Opposite parties in not furnishing the demanded documents of the auctioned site in her favour ?
2.  To what order the parties are entitled ?

7. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          8. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant is a retired school teacher and a senior citizen and she became the successful bidder for auctioned site from the opposite party/Andhra bank.

9. The sale certificate as per Ex-A3/Ex-B3 was issued by the Opposite parties in her favour on 02.02.2013. The Opposite party bank/Andhra bank had proceeded against its borrower Niranjankumar.S in-connection with the loan transaction. Public notice inviting tenders were published in English and kannada newspapers as per Ex-A2/Ex-B2. It was published that the purchaser becomes liable for the payment of all local taxes, excise duty, any other statutory dues, stamp duty and the documents executed for affecting sale and the said property would be sold ‘as is where is condition.’ Later auctioned his site no.148 measuring 50’X30’ situated in Byappanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North to the complainant.

10. At the request of the complainant the Opposite party bank informed the Sub-registrar, Gandhi nagara, Bengaluru through letter Ex-A4/Ex-A13/Ex-B4 dated 15.07.2013 about the sale certificate dated 02.02.2013 requesting to regularize the sale certificate by collecting proper stamp duty and registration fee and informing that authorized officer is exempted his personal appearance u/s 88(1) of Registration act. On the next day i.e on 16.07.2013 Ex-A5/Ex-B5 letter was written again by the bank officials informing to Sub-registrar, Bengaluru with request to condone the delay as the bidder could not get the sale certificate in time due to some personal reasons.

          11. Thereafter the Complainant sent the letter Ex-A6 dated 02.09.2013 requesting to furnish 4 documents, and sent the letters Ex-A11 dated 03.10.2013 and Ex-A12 dated 26.10.2013 seeking the compensation.

          12. The Opposite parties have furnished the copies of list of documents Ex-B1 to show that they handed over the registered sale deed as per Ex-A1 about the auctioned property. In Ex-A3/Ex-B3 also the last sentence shows that all the original title deeds lodged with the bank by Niranjankumar were also handed over to the purchaser to her full satisfaction.  Through Ex-B6 letter the Opposite party No.2 replied to Ex-A11 to the Complainant expressing their surprise to receive her letter after she completely accepted the responsibility as the bidder to complete the registration immediately on receipt of the sale certificate. They also informed that the delay was caused by her in getting registration of sale certificate and it is not done by their side and hence the letters Ex-A4 & Ex-A5 at her request were issued to Sub-registrar.  

          13. The conditions published in Ex-A2/Ex-B2 paper publications show that the purchaser shall be liable for payment of local taxes and any other statutory dues etc., for effecting sale. It shows that the payment of dues towards the local authorities for anything towards the title and possession of the property and transfer of the same shifts to the Complainant. It is known fact that the borrower did not discharge the debt and hence the property was auctioned. Inference also to be drawn that he might not have paid the taxes also. The public notice was given, so that any prudent purchaser have to enquire about all these liabilities that he has to bear till he takes possession and title in his favour. Becoming of the successful bidder means the Complainant has accepted all such liabilities and thereby she cannot expect that bank has to provide all requirements, even after executing of sale certificate and delivering the possession of the property. There was no responsibility on the bank to provide such information of the alleged documents and thereby the Complainant cannot say that there is deficiency in service of the bank. The Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute No.1. Accordingly the Consumer Dispute No.1 answered in the negative.

          14. Consumer Dispute No.2: The Complainant has no right to seek the required documents after completion of the auction proceedings as it was informed her earlier in terms & conditions published. She has not stated how the bank becomes responsible to furnish the documents by establishing that those documents were also deposited with the bank by the borrower. In the absence of such materials, with bald allegations she has filed this case and hence not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly she deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 29th day of December 2016).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite parties